First of all, thanks for all of your comments. Both endings for the film and the novel work in their own separate mediums. Puzo never intended for the original novel to have a sequel, and he did not plan one when he wrote the novel. As Puzo often stated in interviews, he never really cared for the novel, and he wasn't going to franchise it out. The ending close the story of the Corleones right then and there. As for the movie, this ending would not have allow the possibility of a sequel. It wouldn't make sense of having Kay lighting candles at the end of first film with the plot of the second film. I saw the deleted ending from the first film, and it was great had Coppola decided to used it, but the film had so much positive buzz that a sequel was commissioned by Paramount before the first film was finish filming. The close door ending in the film left the possibility of a sequel because the audience assume that Michael still is in the underworld, and the deals are still being made. This is why the opening of the second film begins with the ending of the first one with Rocco honoring Michael, and the audience sees the chair. This opening scene shows that Michael hasn't left the Mafia. The film slowly descends to Michael's damnation, and his broken marriage to Kay, who leaves him, and who would never pray for him, and he is left with no hope at all. The problem with the third film that Coppola damn Michael already beyond any redemption that there no real way for him to be redeem even with a deal with the Vatican then again the third film was made to save Paramount from being sold. As for the novel, Puzo left the reader with a small chance of hope for Michael's redemption.